Friends in High Places

See Lynne? there is another uneducated voter, who believes that Obama is a muslim terrorist drug peddler. Such a shame, but that is the reality. The internet truly does belong to the idiots.

So, Barack Obama is "poised to take the lead?" Where do you guys get this stuff from. Last I checked Clinton had a 12% to 15% point lead nationwide less than one week before Super Tuesday. Does that mean you are saying that Hillary Clinton is now poised to lose the nomination. So much for impartiality, something the press has surely not shown in the Democratic race for the nomination. STOP IT!

So

So

So, Barack Obama is "poised to take the lead?" Where do you guys get this stuff from. Last I checked Clinton had a 12% to 15% point lead nationwide less than one week before Super Tuesday. Does that mean you are saying that Hillary Clinton is now poised to lose the nomination. So much for impartiality, something the press has surely not shown in the Democratic race for the nomination. STOP IT!

So

So

Desperate Barack Hussein - closet Muslim, known drug abuser, a pretender to be the new great black hope, dependent on endorsements from despots like the Kennedy's...a family of booze runners, boozers, womanizers, cocaine users and worse (Chappaquidick) - does he dare believe he is the best America can produce to be the leader of the most powerful nation on earth? Barack Hussein - the fraud who would be King - and I don't mean MLK...more like kind of the slumlord politicians. Though Barnum might say a sucker is born every second - Americans are not suckers - and know a fraud when they see one..aka Barack Hussein.

Desperate Barack Hussein - closet Muslim, known drug abuser, a pretender to be the new great black hope, dependent on endorsements from despots like the Kennedy's...a family of booze runners, boozers, womanizers, cocaine users and worse (Chappaquidick) - does he dare believe he is the best America can produce to be the leader of the most powerful nation on earth? Barack Hussein - the fraud who would be King - and I don't mean MLK...more like kind of the slumlord politicians. Though Barnum might say a sucker is born every second - Americans are not suckers - and know a fraud when they see one..aka Barack Hussein.

Both the blessing and the bane of American politics lies in the convoluted processes we engage in to nominate the "best" candidates and then leave the election of one of them to the population at large. Forgotten in all the machinations are the incalcuable decisions made by millions of voters as to how and who to decide to support. Very few voters can claim a total uniformity of purpose and ideals with everything a candidate might espouse. In the end, the decision often becomes - "what does my heart tell me is right?"
As one who led a school assembly as a high school senior when President Kennedy was assassinated, and who well remembers the race riots in the 1960's and the assassination of Martin Luther King, and finally as one who sat mesmerized by the television coverage of RFK's assassination just prior to graduation from university and entrance into the Navy, I had believed the flame of hope in something greater than mere politics had died. For the record, as a former Veteran I salute John McCain for courage under fire in the widest context and I appreciate Hillary Clinton's lifetime of service, but I endorse Barack Obama for the gift of hope he has kindled once again in our land.

believe me Lynne, there are many voters like that....

I don't think endorsements resonate with voters that much. Perhaps if you are completely undecided and someone you truly respect endorses a candidate it could sway you, but only if you already agree with that candidates positions. I think Fineman, like the rest of the media is completely in love with Obama so of course his endorsements are seen as critical, yet no mention is made of any of Hillary's endorsements, notably from black leaders like Congressman Charles Rangel, Chair of House Ways and Means, or Congresswoman Maxine Waters of California, hardly an establishment person. Fineman even called Obama's ad featuring Caroline Kennedy "understated!" Ha! Comparing Obama who is 2 seconds out of the Illinois legislature to JFK is clearly an overstatement (and I love the Kennedys). Fineman also failed to mention that another group of Kennedys (RFK's kids) have endorsed Hillary.

pt 2

Demographically, with the exception of IA, Obama's demos have been, for lack of a gentler term, horrid.
In his lone victory in SC, he relied HEAVILY (as in 80%) on ONE group, African Americans. No one has ever built a winning strategy based on one group. He has failed to get a majority of, whites, Hispanics, DEMOCRATS, union members, blue-collar workers, WOMEN, SENIORS, and on and on. There has been no evidence, based on the actual results of the previous primaries and caucuses, that senator Obama has the ability to attract those groups of voters. There are no states on TT with an AA population comparable to SC, indeed, there are many states where the % is far below that of Hispanic voters and Obama has failed to attract ANY significant support from the fastest growing group in the democratic party.

Last night one of the more common rationalizations (read:excuses) for the margin of victory and across the board demographic dominance was the contention that Obama didn't have TIME to have the electorate, "get to know him."; Even allowing, for the sake of argument, that this would have had an impact on the outcome, he will not have time to charm the tens of millions in 22 states over the next six days either, nor will the endorsements (and endorsers) that you tout be able to be in enough places for enough time to have more than a small impact, assuming that they really have much influence at all. So we're left with tomorrow's debate and whatever rallies and wholesale ads the respective campaigns engage in.

If today's polls held up next Tuesday, Obama would win 2 of the 22 contests. I will go out on a limb and give him a good shot in six to eight primaries. How many do YOU say he can win? Can he win in NY? can get 40% of the vote? California? 40% PA, 40% without John Edwards in the race, Clinton will attract around 60% of the vote in the states with demographics similar to Florida, and that's a lot of states. I see him winning, if he does, those states with OPEN primaries, where REPUBLICANS (who would no sooner support him in a general election than Clinton) and independents vote. Even in the states he wins, assuming again that he does, he will often if not always, fail to attract a majority of democrats, and his home state of Illinois.

Clinton will have a 300-500 delegate lead by this time next week and some will be quietly calling for senator Obama to graciously concede, especially if one of the two remaining republicans has locked up the nomination. When this comes to pass, and it will, I DARE you to print my letter in your column. If I'm wrong you can get a good laugh over the degree of certitude expressed by the author. I am confident that my assessment is more solidly grounded in understanding the current dynamic of the race than yours is, because unlike you, I am not so smitten with a candidate that I am blind to what is right in front of me



George V Brenner

"...the Democratic race wouldn't be where it is???with Sen. Barack Obama poised to take the lead..."

Mr. Fineman,

You have accused Hillary of, "tearing the party apart", when her voters represent a far more diverse and democratic (as in the democratic party) demographics, so it is little surprise that on the morning that the results of a so called, "Beauty Contest", cause one of the losers of said meaningless contest to drop out of the race, and the winner take not just a majority of the vote but far outstrips her republican counterpart in the largest democratic turnout in Florida history, you would shamelessly continue your (by now amusing) virulent strain of Obama-Love.

Only someone with stars in their eyes and a gushing schoolgirl crush could fail to see the ominous handwriting on the wall. Only a man smitten and blinded by love could fail to make the correlation between last night's results and the results on TT. Only the victim of a love-jones could fail to see the similarity in demo breakdowns between Fl and NV. Only a fool in love would delude themselves into writing something that will forever brand them as utterly partisan and so victimized by hysterical blindness that they are never taken seriously as a journalist of merit again. You must be in love, because truly, only love could possibly be as blind and as foolishly reckless in it's
devotion.

When Obama loses most every large state with approximately the same demographic breakdown as we saw in both NV and FL, will you be surprised? Will you say, "Boy, NO ONE could have seen that coming?", like Brownie at the helm of FEMA on Katrina's sad morning after?
I'm just a mere reader, but I'll lay down a few predictions and I DARE you to match me.

Clinton will win at a minimum 14 of the 22 Super Tuesday primaries.
She will carry ALL of the traditional democratic voting blocks except the very young and AA's in almost EVERY contest.
Her margins of victory will be on average, higher than predicted in the polling.

Florida was a harbinger and if you were being rational (but then, those in love seldom are) you would see that it represented pretty much what we have going on next week. With 22 states, it is impossible to derive the benefit of retail politicking, you're going on print, radio and TV; It's WHOLESALE politicking.
Obama has of yet shown no ability to connect with the electorate in this milieu, whereas Clinton has much experience and success in a large diverse state running two campaigns utilizing the very wholesale strategies needed to excel.

continued...

Caroline Kennedy has lived in her Manhattan Ivory Tower forever. She is no more relevent to the legacy of JFK and RFK than Minnie Mouse. I'll take the opinion of any Florida voter over hers anyday.
Hanksf

Howard Fineman, U of L Brandeis School of Law (1980) - not too far from where the ponies sprint at Churchill Downs - is probably right about the sway of proxy celebrities on a broad swath of our American Electorate, but ought not; be. It seems that this smacks at yet another specie of Lobbyist from which we should recoil. I would rather believe that our governance decisions and choices are informed by poring over cumulative news reports from trusted sources; not from surrogate deciders. Candidates standing for elective public office should have reason to suspect that we bring our support - independently determined - not because we were - sent - by celebrity.

It is a sad, sad commentary that NO ONE here seems to know that ALL of Robert Kennedy, Jr.'s children - Kathleen, Robert, Jr., and Kerry - have endorsed CLINTON!!!!! MSNBC has only mentioned it in passing, and same for CNN. The unbelievable bias of MSNBC is just shocking. So, Fineman is leaving out HALF of the Kennedy Clan in his erroneous assumption. (If he bothered to look at the exit poll results from FL, a state in which Obama had tv and radio ads even though it violated the no=campaign pledge, Ted's endorsement did not make much of a difference at ALL! Oh, but WAIT - then MSNBC would have to acknowledge that Clinton won Florida by a LANDSLIDE with NO advertising!!!)

Obama may be a very good speeker but come on there is speeking about the issues, change and history to be made and then on the other hand there is actually discussing a plan or an outline on how these things are going to be addressed. which Obama hasn't yet given us. And all this talk about endorsments from the Ted and Carolyne Kennedy. These are not the only Kennedys giving endorsments. Have you know Robert Kennedy Jr endorsed Hillery. Also to say, if endorsments is whats going to be the deciding factor I think that is a real shame. The issues and who is more qualified to do the job that is what should really matter the other stuff like gender, race,endorsments ect.. . is not going to get us out of this mess.

I hate lobbyists like I hate eggplant, but luckily if Obama makes it to the presidency, he'll clear out Washington D.C. of those vermin :)

Howard Fineman, U of L Brandeis of Law (1980) - not too far from where the ponies sprint at Churchill Downs - is probably right about the sway of proxy celebrities on a broad swath of our American Electorate but; ought not; be. It seems that this smacks at yet another specie of Lobbyist from which we should recoil. I would rather think that our decisions and - informed - choices are made by poring over or listening to cumulative news reports from trusted sources; not from surrogate deciders. Candidates standing for elective office should have reason to suspect (believe) that we bring our support - independently determined - not because we were sent by celebrity. Misty? Tough as nails, smart as hell-o - Ladies First; but Bill needs to take that bitter chill pill.
scribbler2

radeye:

I honestly didn't find Bill Clinton so bad, so don't just hate on him because he is your opponent's husband.